Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:03:49.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of accidental impact scenarios for composite wing damage tolerance evaluation

Part of: 31st Congress of The International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2019

S. Dubinskii Open the ORCID record for S. Dubinskii [Opens in a new window] ,
Y. Feygenbaum ,
V. Senik  and
E. Metelkin
S. Dubinskii*
Affiliation:
The Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute named after N.E. Zhukovsky (TsAGI), Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, Russian Federation
Y. Feygenbaum
Affiliation:
The State Scientific Research Institute of Civil Aviation (GosNII GA), Moscow, Russian Federation
V. Senik
Affiliation:
The Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute named after N.E. Zhukovsky (TsAGI), Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, Russian Federation
E. Metelkin
Affiliation:
The State Scientific Research Institute of Civil Aviation (GosNII GA), Moscow, Russian Federation
*
dubinsky@tsagi.ru
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The field data characterising aircraft accidental in-service damage was collected, sorted and processed. By means of probabilistic analysis, the wing damageability statistical parameters were determined. The scenarios of wing accidental impacts were described and the qualitative distribution of impact intensity over the wing surfaces was obtained. By means of original analytical method, the metal dent depth data were converted into impact energy data and energy probabilistic distributions were established. It was shown that the functional relationships generated on domestic data are generally consistent with similar foreign results obtained on other types of aircraft with serious differences in operating conditions. Along with realistic impact damage scenarios, the high energy impact events were considered. It was noted that in some cases severe damage events should not be addressed as extremely improbable and should be included into design and certification process.

Keywords

Damage toleranceComposite wingThreshold energyImpact damageProbabilistic analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1268 , October 2019 , pp. 1724 - 1739
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A version of this paper first appeared at the ICAS 2018 Conference held in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, September 2018.

References

REFERENCES

Cook, T.N., Adami, M.G., Digenova, R.R. and Maass, D.P. Advanced Structures Maintenance Concepts. Sikorsky Aircraft Division United Technologies Corporation, Report No. USAAVRADCOM-TR-80-D-16, Stratford, CT, 1980.Google Scholar
Kan, H.P., Cordero, R. and Whitehead, R.S. Advanced Certification Methodology for Composite Structures. Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division Department of the Navy, Rep. DOT/FAA/AR-96/111, Patuxent River, MD, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gary, P.M. and Riskalla, M.G. Development of Probabilistic Design Methodology for Composite Structures. Vought Aircraft Company, Rep. No. DOT/FAA/AR-95/17, Dallas, TX, 1997.Google Scholar
Morteau, E. and Fualdes, C. Composites at airbus. Damage tolerance methodology» FAA workshop for composite damage tolerance and maintenance, Proceedings of the FAA Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Workshop, Chicago, 19–21 July 2006.Google Scholar
Faivre, V. and Morteau, E. Damage tolerant composite fuselage sizing. Characterization of accidental damage threat, Fast Airbus Technical Magazine, 2011, pp 10–16.Google Scholar
Ushakov, A., Stewart, A., Mishulin, I. and Pankov, A. Probabilistic Design of Damage Tolerant Composite Aircraft Structure. Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, DOT/FAA/AR-01/55, Zhukovsky, Russia, 2002.Google Scholar
Advisory Circular 20–107B, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 8 September 2009, Change 1, 24 August 2010.Google Scholar
AMC 20-29 Composite Aircraft Structure Annex II to ED Decision 2010/003/R of 19/07/2010.Google Scholar
Rouchon, J. Effects of low velocity impact damage on primary composite aircraft structures, Proceedings of MIL-HDBK 17 Meeting, Andover, Fall 1999.Google Scholar
Dubinskii, S.V. and Safonov, A.A. Composite-friendly approach to certification of advanced materials and fabrication methods used in aviation industry, J Machinery Manufacture and Reliability, 2017, 46, (5), pp 501–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feygenbaum, Yu.M. and Dubinskiy, S.V. Influence of accidental in-service damage on structural durability and aircraft operation life, . Sci Bulletin Mechanical Science and Technology Update CA 2013, 187, pp 84–91 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Fеygenbaum, Y.М., Sokolov, Y.S., Bozhevalov, D.G. and Arepev, К.А. Systematization and analysis incidental damages of use power construction aircraft operated in civil aviation of the Russian Federation, Sci Bulletin GosNII GA, 2013, 3, (314), pp 16–25 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Application. Vol. II, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1966, New York, London, Sidney, p 8.Google Scholar
Ross, S. A First Course in Probability (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2010. p 58.Google Scholar
Kingman, J.F.C. Poisson Processes, 1993, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, p 16.Google Scholar
Dubinskiy, S.V., Zharenov, I.A., Pavlov, M.V. and Ordyntsev, V.M. A method for determination of energies characterizing accidental impacts into aircraft structure, TsAGI Sci J 2016, 8, pp 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martynov, G.V. The Omega Square Tests. Nauka, 1979, Moscow, p 13 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Casella, G. and Berger, R. Statistical Inference, Second Edition, Duxbury, 2002, Pacific Grove, CA p 385.Google Scholar
Lawless, J.F. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2003, Hoboken, NJ, pp 478–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polymer matrix composites: materials usage, design and analysis, The Composite Material Handbook, Vol. 3, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2009, Warrendale, PA, Chapter 12.3.3.Google Scholar
Fawcett, A.J. and Oaks, G.D. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Composite Airframe Damage Tolerance and Service Experience, Proceedings of the FAA Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Workshop, Chicago, 19–21 July 2006.Google Scholar
Defrancisci, G.K., Chen, Z.M. and Kim, H. Blunt impact damage formation in frame and stringer stiffened composite panels, 18th International Conference on Composite Materials, Jeju ICC, Korea, 21–26 August 2011.Google Scholar
Kim, H., Defrancisci, G.K. and Chen, Z.M. Ground vehicle blunt impact damage formation to composite aircraft structures, Adv Composite Materials, 2014, 23, (1), pp 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-20. High-Energy Wide-Area Blunt Impact for Composite Structures Category, FAA 08/08/16.Google Scholar
Fеygenbaum, Yu.М., Mikolaychuk, Yu.A., Metelkin, E.S., Dubinskiy, S.V. and Gvozdev, S.A. The study of the capabilities of NDT methods in the inspection of composite structures with impact damages, Sci Bulletin GosNII GA, 2018, 21, (332), pp 31–41 (in Russian).Google Scholar